Your original problem was NOT with the folding fins concept, it was a lack of understanding of what the rest of us were talking about, into which you attempted to interject your "squared" "circle" misconceptions. We have been talking about the THEORETICAL diameter limits of a folded and dual-packed missile inside the confines of an 85cm UVLS cell. The theoretical limit turns out to be about 45cm diameter once you account for the fins and the spacers between the missile and the VL cell wall. Since we have been talking about the theoretical mathematical limits of circles inside squares divided by a diagonal, no "sources" are required AT ALL. Again, this was not your original objection anyway, only your LATEST objection after you realized how wrong you originally were.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
My point is the 4-fin missile cross section is better modeled as a square than a circle, because a circle will cause misrepresentation of the clearance requirement when disused in the same context with the internal shapes of the VLS cell. Some people here understand that, some people can not, not with more illustrations (which I hope I can provide later)
Folding the fin in a particular way is Jura's attempt to show the dual-mount is still feasible, even with fin-clearance considered. But then you need to address the questions I raised in #4861. Not right or wrong, just unknowns need sources.
This is getting ridiculous at this point. This point of yours here is STILL wrong after all this time because we have been talking about a missile cross section that involves fin folding from the very beginning. There is no need to model a 4-fin missile as a square when the fins can fold, and in several different ways. Everybody understands what you're saying here, including me, but everybody still thinks you're wrong, because you are.
Wrong. This was MY original graphic, which BTW I posted for you very early on to indicate from the very beginning what we were talking about. Clearly you had no understanding of the graphic and wanted to insert your own incorrect opinion anyway.
to do wait
Jura The idiot
General
day watch just arrived LOLOMG, looking at this photo here, is it just me or do the fins actually look like they were designed to fold from the beginning???
View attachment 44043
it looks like you guys had fun here
Jura The idiot
General
hombre, what I noted
(in the picture attached to the above post; I now located said picture using images.google.com and it's for example at )
while drinking my early morning coffee were wings and fins FOLDED, as they were already Saturday at 8:05 AM
OK OK if I were you, at this point I would be sure to put up a graphics countering:
and ...:
...
... or whatever you try to counterfinding the maximum diameter of each of the two circles inscribed in the unit square:
...
EDIT I acknowledge once again the original idea is by Iron Man
Naval launchers, guns and others Oct 23, 2017
LOL!
I guess this remark doesn't help you on this forum at all
Last edited:
Here is an illustration for people who had hard time understanding the issue. Assuming S = 850mm, on the single load situation (on the left) we have displayed three different situations when tube radius R is less than 1/2 S. In clock wise order, the first case is when the missile would load but clearance of fin, C, is less than 176mm. The second case is when clearance of fin, B, is 176mm. The third case is a folded fin with clearance 176mm. In this chart A is the clearance of the missile tube, A = 425mm - RIn the chart on the right we are using the second case from the left image as the simplest form. The chart on the right illustrates when attempting dual load and when E > 0.25 S = 425mm there is a potential fin clearance problem in the pink arrow area. Of course when E<= 0.25 S = 425mm it is standard quad load situation. D is the radius of the missile tube D<213mm .
When I say "potential" problem because I do not know the Chinese military clearance requirements. If you have more info please provide a source.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
The potential clearance problem was caused by using a circle as the model for the missile cross section. In my opinion a square is a better model, because squares have the "corner" which is important to maintain the fin clearance.
If you want to ignore that missiles have fins/stabilizers that are sticking out, and insist on using a circle to model the missile cross section, you can design a honey comb pattern to use hexagon cells which can achieve higher packing ratio than using square cells such as those on 052D and 055.
If you want to ignore that missiles have fins/stabilizers that are sticking out, and insist on using a circle to model the missile cross section, you can design a honey comb pattern to use hexagon cells which can achieve higher packing ratio than using square cells such as those on 052D and 055.
- Status